CHINTHA DHARMARAJAN Vs. MARY ANTO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Is an election petition filed under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act liable to be dismissed on the ground that parties other than those who are necessary parties under S.90 of the Act have been made parties to the election petition That is the question involved in this revision.

(2.) Ms. Chintha Dharmarajan, the President of the Porathissery Panchayat challenges the maintainability of the election petition filed against her by Ms. Mary Anto, the respondent herein before the Principal Munsiff, Irinjalakuda. Ms. Chintha Dharmarajan was elected to the Panchayat from Ward No. 1. The respondent filed O.P. No. 21/2000 before the Court below praying that the election of Ms. Chintha Dharmarajan be declared void. The Returning Officer was also impleaded as one of the respondents in the election petition. According to the petitioner impleadment of the Returning Officer amounts to contravention of the provisions of S.90 of the Act and therefore the election petition is not maintainable. The learned Munsiff by the impugned order rejected the preliminary objection. Hence this revision.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner strongly contended that the order of the court below is clearly illegal and cannot be sustained in law. According to the learned counsel, the court below ought to have held that the election petition is not maintainable since it does not comply with the provisions of S.90 of the Act. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent supported the order of the court below and urged that there is no ground for interference.